Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Supreme court (3)
- Fifth amendment (2)
- First amendment (2)
- Supreme court of the united states (2)
- 911 calls (1)
-
- Academic marketplace (1)
- Advisory (1)
- And Aboriginal Law; Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Antitrust (1)
- Atkins (1)
- Booker (1)
- Capital punishment (1)
- Competition (1)
- Confrontation clause (1)
- Constitutional Law; Indigenous (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Constitutional right (1)
- Crawford (1)
- Cruel and unusual punishment (1)
- David wright (1)
- Death penalty (1)
- Decisions (1)
- Diplomatic negotiations (1)
- Eigth amendment (1)
- Eminent domain (1)
- Establishment clause (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Excited utterance (1)
- Federal sentencing guidelines manual (1)
- Free exercise clause (1)
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Five Times More Likely: Haaland V. Brackeen And What It Could Mean For Maine Tribes, Eloise Melcher
Five Times More Likely: Haaland V. Brackeen And What It Could Mean For Maine Tribes, Eloise Melcher
Maine Law Review
In the 1970s Native activists realized that states were removing Native children from their families at disproportional rates when compared to non-Native children. The activists pushed for the enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act, which became law in 1978. The law increases the burden on states before Native children can be taken from their families. As part of a larger movement to attack the Equal Protection Clause in the courts, Haaland v. Brackeen reached the Supreme Court in 2022. The plaintiffs in Brackeen argue that the Indian Child Welfare Act is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, including that …
Discretionary Gatekeeping: The Us Supreme Court's Management Of Its Original Jurisdiction Docket Since 1961, Vincent L. Mckusick
Discretionary Gatekeeping: The Us Supreme Court's Management Of Its Original Jurisdiction Docket Since 1961, Vincent L. Mckusick
Maine Law Review
There is a special drama when a state sues another state invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the international arena, similar disputes between sovereign states would be settled through diplomatic negotiations or armed conflict, and the stakes in the Supreme Court trial are often as high as in international disputes. The same special drama attends a trial in the Supreme Court with the United States opposing one or more of the fifty States. In drafting Article III of the Constitution the Founders treated the states as quasi-sovereigns and, to match the dignity of …
Where The Right Went Wrong In Southworth: Underestimating The Power Of The Marketplace, Clay Calvery
Where The Right Went Wrong In Southworth: Underestimating The Power Of The Marketplace, Clay Calvery
Maine Law Review
When the United States Supreme Court unanimously declared in March 2000 that mandatory student activity fees at public universities do not offend the First Amendment if distributed in viewpoint-neutral fashion, the decision dealt a severe blow to the conservative movement that had both supported the challenge to fee assessments and long railed against a perceived leftist/liberal bias in higher education. The New York Times, acknowledging the political implications of the case, hailed the Court's decision in Board of Regents v. Southworth as “a surprisingly broad and decisive victory for universities on an ideologically charged issue that has roiled higher education.” …
Life In No Trump: Property And Speech Under The Constitution, Richard A. Esptein
Life In No Trump: Property And Speech Under The Constitution, Richard A. Esptein
Maine Law Review
The editors of the Maine Law Review have been kind enough to offer me the opportunity to respond to Laura Underkuffler's criticism of my work in her recent Godfrey Lecture, “When Should Rights ‘Trump’? An Examination of Speech and Property,” which appears in the preceding issue. In my earlier writings on constitutional law, more specifically, in my paper, Property, Speech and the Politics of Distrust, I took the position that modern Supreme Court jurisprudence had taken a turn for the worse insofar as it used different standards of review in passing on the constitutionality of legislation. The current position, roughly …
What Got Into The Court? What Happens Next?, Linda Greenhouse
What Got Into The Court? What Happens Next?, Linda Greenhouse
Maine Law Review
We are now in the midst of an amazing Supreme Court term--more than half-way through on the calendar, far short of halfway through in terms of what has yet to be decided. It's been a roller-coaster term of sorts, beginning with the highly unusual early-September argument in the campaign finance case, followed by a rather quiet fall and winter, and then ending with an April sitting during which the Court will consider, in the context of the country's response to terrorism, cases that are likely to go quite far to define for the modern age the meaning of citizenship and, …
Calling Crawford: Minnesota Declares A 911 Call Non-Testimonial In State V. Wright, Alistair Y. Raymond
Calling Crawford: Minnesota Declares A 911 Call Non-Testimonial In State V. Wright, Alistair Y. Raymond
Maine Law Review
In State v. Wright, 1 the State of Minnesota charged David Wright with possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of second-degree assault against his girlfriend and her sister. A jury found Wright guilty on all charges and sentenced him to sixty months in jail for each crime, with sentences served concurrently. Wright’s girlfriend, R.R., and her sister, S.R., did not testify against him at trial. The prosecution, however, used the transcript of a 911 call placed by R.R. against Wright in the trial. Although the 911 call was hearsay, the court admitted it under Minnesota’s excited …
Parsing Personal Predilections: A Fresh Look At The Supreme Court's Cruel And Unusual Death Penalty Jurisprudence, Susan M. Raeker-Jordan
Parsing Personal Predilections: A Fresh Look At The Supreme Court's Cruel And Unusual Death Penalty Jurisprudence, Susan M. Raeker-Jordan
Maine Law Review
The now well-known case of Atkins v. Virginia decided that the execution of those with mental retardation constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The more recent case of Roper v. Simmons decided that execution of those who were under the age of eighteen when they committed their crimes also constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Both decisions changed the law that had existed since 1989, when the Court held in Penry v. Lynaugh and Stanford v. Kentucky that executions of members of both classes were not unconstitutional. Writing for the Court in Atkins v. Virginia, Justice Stevens was …
Kelo V. City Of New London-Wrongly Decided And A Missed Opportunity For Principled Line Drawing With Respect To Eminent Domain Takings, Orlando E. Delogu
Kelo V. City Of New London-Wrongly Decided And A Missed Opportunity For Principled Line Drawing With Respect To Eminent Domain Takings, Orlando E. Delogu
Maine Law Review
No eminent domain taking case in the last twenty-five years has excited the level of interest, attention, and debate as has Kelo v. City of New London. The Supreme Court’s decision has not quelled that debate. If anything the stridency, the emotional tenor, of the debate has increased. And in the few months since the decision came down, several dozen states (in the absence of any meaningful federal limitation on what constitutes “public use”) have proposed statutes or constitutional amendments that would limit their exercise of eminent domain (taking) powers. There is even talk of federal legislation to temper, to …
United States V. Pho: Defining The Limits Of Discretionary Sentencing, John G. Wheatley
United States V. Pho: Defining The Limits Of Discretionary Sentencing, John G. Wheatley
Maine Law Review
In the consolidated case of United States v. Pho, the government appealed two district court rulings that imposed criminal sentences outside of the range provided in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual (Guidelines). At separate trials, both defendants pied guilty to the crime of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base (commonly known as crack). Rejecting the Guidelines' disparate treatment of crack and powder cocaine, the district court imposed sentences that were below the Guidelines' range, but above the statutory mandatory minimum. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated both sentences and remanded the …
Trinko: A Kinder, Gentler Approach To Dominant Firms Under The Antitrust Laws?, Edward D. Cavanagh
Trinko: A Kinder, Gentler Approach To Dominant Firms Under The Antitrust Laws?, Edward D. Cavanagh
Maine Law Review
Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization, attempted monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize. The § 2 prohibitions are rooted in concerns "that possession of unchallenged economic power deadens initiative, discourages thrift and depresses energy; that immunity from competition is a narcotic, and rivalry is a stimulant, to industrial progress; that the spur of constant stress is necessary to counteract an inevitable disposition to let well enough alone." At the same time, courts have recognized that size alone cannot be the basis of condemnation under § 2, for as Learned Hand observed in Alcoa, "[t]he successful competitor, having been urged …
Education Funding In Maine In Light Of Zelman And Locke: Too Much Play In The Joints?, Sarah M. Lavigne
Education Funding In Maine In Light Of Zelman And Locke: Too Much Play In The Joints?, Sarah M. Lavigne
Maine Law Review
The United States Supreme Court has struggled with the countervailing directives of the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause for decades. One area in which this battle has been particularly contentious is the issue of public funding of religious schools. On one hand, opponents argue that such funding is an impermissible co-mingling of church and state, thereby violating the Establishment Clause. Meanwhile, proponents of public funding of religious schools argue that, to withhold funding from religious schools would place a burden on those wishing to send their children to religious schools, thereby impermissibly preventing individuals from practicing their faith …